Office of the Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner. Guide to FOIP, Chapter 3, Access to Records. Updated 5 May 2023. 44 The requirement of FOIP on both applicants and government institutions in combination with the purposes of the Act demonstrate an intention on the part of the Legislature that an individual’s access to information request will be processed by the government institution in a fair, reasonable, open and flexible manner. Requiring an applicant to narrow an access to information request because it is too much work or too expensive to process, is not authorized under FOIP. In terms of “clarification” of an access to information request, many applicants are unfamiliar with an organization and its administrative practices. They may not be aware of the process by which a government institution reaches or implements a decision or policy, the kind of records that may be generated or the process of disposing of records. As a result, their access to information requests may be unclear and they would be unsure how to articulate what they are looking for. Therefore, clarification of a request may involve assisting an applicant in defining the subject of the request, the specific kinds of records of interest and the time period for which records are being requested.79 Government institutions have a duty to engage in the clarification process up to the point when a fee estimate is provided. However, a government institution has no obligation [or authority] to require clarification of a request that is, on its face, very clear.80 In terms of “narrowing” of an access to information request, it is important to discuss with an applicant any request that involves a large amount of information or is estimated to require a large amount of search time. The objective of narrowing a large request is to reduce fees for the applicant and for the provision of better service, in terms of both time and results. However, applicants are not required to narrow a request and refusing to narrow a broad request would generally not be considered an abuse of the right of access.81 IPC Findings In Disregard Decision 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022, the Commissioner considered an application from the Holy Family Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 140 (Holy Family) to disregard an applicant’s three access to information requests. Holy Family asserted that the requests were repetitious, systematic, would unreasonably interfere with Holy Family’s operations, were an abuse of the right of access, were frivolous, vexatious and were not made in good faith pursuant to subsections 43.1(2)(a), (b) and (c) of The Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (LA FOIP). While considering this 79 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 3 at p. 51. 80 Service Alberta, FOIP Guidelines and Practices: 2009 Edition, Chapter 3 at p. 52. 81 SK OIPC Disregard Decision 040-2022, 041-2022, 042-2022 at [58].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTgwMjYzOA==